Nadine Heck, Liza Goldberg, Dominic A Andradi-Brown, Anthony Campbell, Siddharth Narayan, Gabby N Ahmadia, David Lagomasino
{"title":"Global drivers of mangrove loss in protected areas.","authors":"Nadine Heck, Liza Goldberg, Dominic A Andradi-Brown, Anthony Campbell, Siddharth Narayan, Gabby N Ahmadia, David Lagomasino","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite increasing efforts and investment in mangrove conservation, mangrove cover continues to decline globally. The extent to which protected area (PA) management effectively prevents mangrove loss globally across differing management objectives and governance types is not well understood. We combined remote sensing data with PA information to identify the extent and the drivers of mangrove loss across PAs with distinct governance types and protection levels based on categories developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Mangrove loss due to storms and erosion was prevalent across all governance types and most IUCN categories. However, the extent of human-driven loss differed across governance types and IUCN categories. Loss was highest in national government PAs. Private, local, shared arrangement, and subnational government agencies had low human-driven mangrove loss. Human-driven loss was highest in PAs with the highest level of restrictions on human activities (IUCN category I) due to mangrove conversion to areas for commodity production (e.g., aquaculture), whereas PAs that allowed sustainable resource use (e.g., category VI) experienced low levels of human-driven mangrove loss. Because category I PAs with high human-driven loss were primarily governed by national government agencies, conservation outcomes in highly PAs might depend not only on the level of restrictions, but also on the governance type. Mangrove loss across different governance types and IUCN categories varied regionally. Specific governance types and IUCN categories thus seemed more effective in preventing mangrove loss in certain regions. Overall, we found that natural drivers contributed to global mangrove loss across all PAs, whereas human-driven mangrove loss was lowest in PAs with subnational- to local-level governance and PAs with few restrictions on human activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14293"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14293","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Despite increasing efforts and investment in mangrove conservation, mangrove cover continues to decline globally. The extent to which protected area (PA) management effectively prevents mangrove loss globally across differing management objectives and governance types is not well understood. We combined remote sensing data with PA information to identify the extent and the drivers of mangrove loss across PAs with distinct governance types and protection levels based on categories developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Mangrove loss due to storms and erosion was prevalent across all governance types and most IUCN categories. However, the extent of human-driven loss differed across governance types and IUCN categories. Loss was highest in national government PAs. Private, local, shared arrangement, and subnational government agencies had low human-driven mangrove loss. Human-driven loss was highest in PAs with the highest level of restrictions on human activities (IUCN category I) due to mangrove conversion to areas for commodity production (e.g., aquaculture), whereas PAs that allowed sustainable resource use (e.g., category VI) experienced low levels of human-driven mangrove loss. Because category I PAs with high human-driven loss were primarily governed by national government agencies, conservation outcomes in highly PAs might depend not only on the level of restrictions, but also on the governance type. Mangrove loss across different governance types and IUCN categories varied regionally. Specific governance types and IUCN categories thus seemed more effective in preventing mangrove loss in certain regions. Overall, we found that natural drivers contributed to global mangrove loss across all PAs, whereas human-driven mangrove loss was lowest in PAs with subnational- to local-level governance and PAs with few restrictions on human activities.
尽管在红树林保护方面做出了越来越多的努力和投资,但全球红树林覆盖率仍在继续下降。对于不同管理目标和治理类型的保护区(PA)管理在多大程度上有效防止了全球红树林的损失,我们还不甚了解。我们将遥感数据与保护区信息相结合,根据世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)制定的类别,确定了具有不同治理类型和保护水平的保护区的红树林损失程度和驱动因素。风暴和侵蚀造成的红树林损失在所有治理类型和大多数世界自然保护联盟类别中都很普遍。然而,不同治理类型和世界自然保护联盟类别中人为因素造成的损失程度各不相同。国家政府保护区的损失最大。私人、地方、共同安排和国家以下各级政府机构的红树林人为损失程度较低。在对人类活动限制程度最高的保护区(世界自然保护联盟 I 类)中,由于红树林转化为商品生产区域(如水产养殖),人为因素造成的损失最高,而允许资源可持续利用的保护区(如 VI 类)中,人为因素造成的红树林损失较低。由于人为损失较高的第一类保护区主要由国家政府机构管理,因此高度保护区的保护结果可能不仅取决于限制程度,还取决于管理类型。不同治理类型和 IUCN 类别的红树林损失因地区而异。因此,在某些地区,特定的治理类型和 IUCN 类别似乎能更有效地防止红树林的损失。总体而言,我们发现自然因素造成了全球所有保护区的红树林损失,而人为因素造成的红树林损失在次国家级到地方级治理的保护区以及对人类活动限制较少的保护区中最低。
期刊介绍:
Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.